Mridula Sharma vs District Judge, Champawat & Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is serving as Group-D employee in Judgeship at Champawat. She participated in a selection for promotion to a Group-C post in ministerial cadre held in the month of June, 2016. She was declared unsuccessful in the selection. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2016, seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. To declare the action of Respondent No. 1 in promoting the Respondent No. 2 to the post of Junior Clerk/Class-III employee ignoring the claim of the petition, despite actually scoring higher marks by her than the Respondent No. 2, as arbitrary and illegal.

B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and to quash the impugned promotion order dated 6.06.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) in so far as it relates to the Respondent No. 2.

C. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to prepare the merit list afresh, correcting the mistake highlighted in the Writ Petition and to promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk/ Class-III employee from due date i.e. 6.06.2016.

D. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.”

According to the petitioner, she scored 68 marks out of 100 in the said selection while the last selected candidate belonging to General Category scored 68. 66 marks. Thus according to petitioner, her score was short by .66 marks only and there was no one else between her and last selected candidate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the General Category candidate immediately below petitioner in the merit list had scored 65.33 marks out of 100, therefore, he will not get any benefit, even if one bonus mark for question no. 6 is given to him.

Petitioner blames question no. 6 of the question paper for her non-selection and contends that all the four options given in answer to said question, are incorrect. English translation of question no. 6 of question paper is given below:-

“6. In which year Judgeship of District Champawat was established?

(A) Year 1999

(B) Year 2000

(C) Year 2001

(D) Year 2002

According to petitioner, out of four options given for question no. 6, none gave the correct answer. The Government Order dated 01.09.1998, whereby Judgeship of District Champawat was established is enclosed as Annexure No.-8 to the writ petition. It was the contention of petitioner that because of a wrong answer treated as correct by the Selecting Body, petitioner’s score in written examination was reduced by one mark and the candidates, who marked option (C) as answer were given one mark, even though it is a wrong answer. To dispel doubt regarding date of establishment of Judgeship, District Champawat, this Court on 07.10.2021 passed the following order:-

“The sole controversy in this writ petition revolves around the date, on which Judgeship at Champawat was established.

The Registrar General of this Court is directed to furnish the date of establishment of Judgeship at Champawat in a sealed cover on the next date of listing.

List this matter on 28.10.2021”

Pursuant to the said order, Registrar General submitted report dated 22.10.2021 stating that the Judgeship at Champawat was established vide Government Order dated 01.09.1998 of Uttar Pradesh Government. The stand of the petitioner is vindicated by the report submitted by Registrar General. Thus, it is apparent that candidates, who marked option (C) were wrongly given one mark for question no. 6 despite option (C) being incorrect answer.

I find substance in the submission made on behalf of petitioner that since provisional answer key was not published nor objections were invited from the candidates, therefore, petitioner did not have the opportunity to question correctness of answer to question no. 6. Thus, the challenge thrown by petitioner cannot be summarily rejected, as not maintainable.

Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, however, contends that petitioner took a chance by marking option (B) in answer to question no. 6, therefore, he cannot now question correctness of the answer treated as correct by the Selecting body. The said contention raised by Mr. Nandan Arya cannot be accepted. Since none of the four options to question no. 6 gave correct answer, therefore, petitioner cannot be blamed for marking option (B) in reply to the said question.

Since the report submitted by Registrar General of this Court indicates that none of the four options to question no. 6 gave correct answer to the said question, therefore, petitioner alone cannot be blamed for marking option (B) in response to said question.

In the given circumstances, the authority holding selection has the option to delete question no. 6 and assess performance of candidates based on their marks in remaining 39 questions or to give equal bonus marks for question no. 6 to all the candidates.

Since petitioner has suffered on account of mistake on the part of question setter, therefore, the authority which held the selection is under an obligation to re-visit the issue in the light of report submitted by Registrar General.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by directing District Judge, Champawat to re-evaluate performance of candidates in the exercise for promotion to Group-C post held in the month of June, 2016, in the light of report submitted by Registrar General of this Court. However, the successful candidate promoted in the said selection, who is likely to be affected, shall be put to notice and shall be given at least two weeks’ time to have his say in the matter. After considering reply received in response to such notice, District Judge shall pass appropriate order, within six weeks from the date of issuance of such notice to the successful candidate.

It shall be open to District Judge to explore possibility of promoting petitioner to a Group-C ministerial post from due date in order to save the promotion exercise.